Changes to issuing pistol licences

les45

Sparks, we are more than capable of hosting this visit,we are simply faciliting the visit on behalf of SSAI, many members of this forum have visited our range ,many have joined the club, I have no doubt that on the day we can and will make this a success.

les45

The wearing of any article of clothing that bears any emblem or insignia, is strictly banned, the wearing of any parmilitary type clothing is strictly banned.,this rule is strictly enforced on NITSA ranges.

civdef

This subject seems to have gone quiet of late. Any developemts on the licencing process?

les45

The Doj visit took place last Saturday, the Doj visitors spent about 90minutes on the range, viewing members of City Of Dublin shooting ,and also meeting and discussing NITSA/ UKPSA/ IPSA, pistol saftey course with our Chief Saftey Instructor.

civdef

Interesting, what was the general atmosphere of the meeting like?

les45

I felt it went well, the doj were very interested in our Pistol Saftey course, they were( I hope) impressed with the amount of detail and time involved in completing the course, our CPI went through the various aspects of the course ,pre reads, qualification shoot, etc. , we emphised the need for sportspeople to have access tovarious differant caliberes ,and not just .22 and .32sw. They left with plenty of food for thought, !!

BlackDot

Sparks - with regard central - super, I would assume that it means that if you go in and say to your super you want a 9mm Glock to go to the olympics, by involving central we now have someone who finally knows something about guns doing the relevent checks. It brings some consistancy to the process and people who have a legitimate reason for a high power gun have nothing to worry about.

One final thing:
AT LONG LAST THE DOJ ARE TALKING TO SHOOTERS AND WHATS MORE THEY APPEAR AT LEAST TO BE LISTENING

Why then I ask are people not being slightly positive but are still whinging?

BD

Sparks

BlackDot wrote:

Sparks - with regard central - super, I would assume that it means that if you go in and say to your super you want a 9mm Glock to go to the olympics, by involving central we now have someone who finally knows something about guns doing the relevent checks.

That's assuming that the one chap whose desk all the applications arrive on can handle dealing with the applications from the hundred thousand or so people applying now, and the people who apply for pistol licences now that they're available (currently we have 160,000 shotguns, and 40,000 rifles - so how many pistols will we end up with? 10,000? 20,000?). And yes, you can have a team of people for that, but there still has to be one signature on it - and what happens if the system breaks and we have a Dunblane incident, with the Minister's signature on the cert of the loon who pulls the trigger?

It brings some consistancy to the process and people who have a legitimate reason for a high power gun have nothing to worry about.

Except that the very core of the thinking behind the Firearms Acts will have been changed in a very rushed manner. Dunno 'bout you, but a major change, hastily carried out, without much debate... it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside...

AT LONG LAST THE DOJ ARE TALKING TO SHOOTERS AND WHATS MORE THEY APPEAR AT LEAST TO BE LISTENING
Why then I ask are people not being slightly positive but are still whinging?

Whinging? I wouldn't say whinging. I'd say concerned, with just cause.
(And I'll wait until the final version of the bill is published before I pop the champagne cork. Just to be sure, you know?).

mosulli4

Any updates on this issue?

I am a 36 year old irish shooter, with interest in all shooting aspects (clays, game shooting, rimfire target, and centrefire target). I have held some form of license since the age of 17.

I want to see the laws changed to ease both Garda administration, and my own requirements. I have followed these threads with great interest.

I have written to Minister McDowell, CC my local TD, looking for the following...

.No restriction on rifle calibre
.ability for individuals to handload
.pistol availability and the rights to license/wholesalers to import
.bunching us all in as criminals on the DOJ justice bill.

however I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment...

I can understand that those people (who are still alive, after the temporary custody order) want their pistols back. I can understand those people who want pistols for internationally regulated disciplines (mostly .22lr calibre).

What do we need 9mm or .40SW/45 calibre high capacity automatics for in this country?

For "Practical Pistol"? - what are we practising for? We cannot defend our homes from criminals using such hardware.
In essence we have nothing to be practical about. There is no doubt in my mind that this form of shooting is fun, and those who succeed at it are on top of their game, but what is the point in this country?

I have been delighted and privileged to shoot some serious hardware at the taxpayers expense as a member of the FCA. Examples include the FN FAL rifle, FN MAG machine gun, and even the 25 pounder howitzer!Another example would be the 9mm Browning High Power (the BAP) pistol. Believe me I would love one in my gunsafe. However I cannot see a legitimate reason to own one, unless an international, regulated, "match" discipline is available. I do not mean any offense, but just because some countries allow practical pistol does not mean it has an application in this country. Typical match pistol events use good old .22 short/long or long rifle. If I am wrong, please inform me, and I will order my CZ-85 as soon as possible. I have shot as a guest in the US on a large range. Pistol Shooters tended to fall into 4 general categories...

1. Practising with the home defense pistol - typically a revolver in .38 special or .44 magnum or an auto in .45acp. - Great if it is enshrined in the legal system.

2. Pistol hunters - long barrell .44 magnum/Thomson Contender single shots in exotic calibres. - It is hard enough to find/justify deer permits in this country, and we have no grizzlies to worry about.

3. Match pistol/ rapid fire competition shooters, using .22 pistols or air pistols.

4. Camo clad SWAT wannabees with hi-cap autos, playing Walter Mitty. - Worrying.

I genuinly believe that the temporary custody order has created a vacuum of regulation over the past 30 odd years. I would love to own an FN FAL rifle, but why? Lets be careful what we wish for.
If we are unrealistic all will be lost, as in the UK. Think of the boy racers/hoodies in your locality. I am sure they would love a hi-cap 9mm to bolster their street cred, as they fantasise about being rapper gangsters. If they have no criminal record they will succeed, and f*ck it up for the rest of us...


regards, and expecting much negative response...

mosulli4

Sparks

mosulli4 wrote:

Any updates on this issue?

Got this by email the other day:

From: SSAI PRO
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 12:41 PM
Subject: DOJ visits to ranges update
Dear all
Just to update you on the recent visits to ranges with Tom Lynch of the
DOJ. Tom is the Principal Officer in the Firearms and Explosives Section
of the Department of Justice.

We visited the ranges of the Northern Ireland Target Shooting Association,
this is a purpose built pistol range jus 8 kilometres North of Newry, this
visit took place on Saturday 5th March, there was a City of Dublin Pistol
competition on at the time of the visit and also a safety course being run
for club members, Tom was impressed with the way the club was run and all
of the aspects of the safe use of pistols on the range.

Yesterday 12th Tom visited the new range in Fingal, Fingal Sporting Club
and also Courtlough, he was very impressed with the standards of
construction and as Cortlough was very busy was also impressed with the
numbers of people participating in shooting sports.

I believe that the visits were well received and our thanks to the ranges
that allowed us to visit, Tom was open about the fact that he now has a
better understanding of our Sport and clearly the visits were worthwhile
with this outcome.

At this point the DOJ have had meetings with SSAI, the Pony Club and the
NTSA, the SSAI will be meeting them again in the near future to better
understand the proposed changes to the legislation. As the CJB has now had
its second reading with the further proposals to be added a committee
stage it would be envisaged that the CJB and the amendments to the
firearms acts will be brought forward into legislation probably by the
Autumn.

Kind Regards
Declan

From what I've heard through other channels, it seems air and .22 pistols will be fine, but higher calibres are something they want strictly controlled - the idea of anyone walking about with sidearms isn't one they're really willing to accept, but they happen to think that olympic shooting and that kind of organised target shooting is a perfectly safe sport and don't want to restrict it. Also there's a new kind of licence for training people being discussed, which will be a licence to use but not possess, and which would be available for ages 12 and up for airguns and 14 and up for cartridge guns - but the parents/guardians would have to have a licence to own the firearm and the ammunition. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me - no 12-year-old ought to be off shooting unsupervised!

I have written to Minister McDowell, CC my local TD, looking for the following...
.No restriction on rifle calibre

I don't think there is one at present, at least not on the books. Practically, mind, you'd want a safe range to use it at so 20mm calibre rifles aren't going to happen anytime soon

.ability for individuals to handload

That one's odd. You can have (as I understand it), all of the tools and most of the materials, and the activity itself is legal, but propellant and primers need an explosives licence? But you see, even if it's incredibly akward to the point of a de facto ban, it's still legally available...

.pistol availability and the rights to license/wholesalers to import

I think that's going to clear up as soon as the rules get thrashed out properly. For a civil servant to stick his neck out... well, it's a rare event since there's no reward for them to do so, only punishments. That japanese saying applies - "the nail that stands out gets hammered". (And blaming the nail, as I've seen some people doing with relish, is just stupid and doesn't do anyone any favours at all).

bunching us all in as criminals on the DOJ justice bill.

I still think that one is a bit of a triviality. If we were being covered in a criminal Act, that'd be different, but a Bill, well, at worst it's a faux pas. Remember, the rules are still called the Firearms Act, even if they were amended in a bill of a different name - the actual ruleset hasn't changed, it's just had an amendment added to it. The routes by which the amendments arrive are pretty much secondary to what's actually in them. For all the noise from some quarters on this, I imagine that if the amendments suddenly cut out 90% of the regulations we had to follow and made our lives much easier, people wouldn't care if they were put forward in the ShootersAreABunchOfIdiots Bill 2005!

However I cannot see a legitimate reason to own one, unless an international, regulated, "match" discipline is available.

Hmmm. There are IPSC, IDPA and other "practical" disciplines, but there is a debate between IPSC and ISSF regarding whether they're "match" disciplines or not (and regardless of the cattiness of the debate, some good points have been raised against the IPSC style of discipline that haven't yet been answered). There are also national-level competitions like the US's NRA bullseye three-gun match. And there are fullbore ISSF competitions that go to world championships level but they only go up to .32 calibre. But for a definitive answer you must define what you mean by a "legitimate" match, which isn't easy to do. It's one of those lines that gets blurrier the closer you look at it.

3. Camo clad SWAT wannabees with hi-cap autos, playing Walter Mitty.

And welcome to the nightmare of the DoJ! One shooter from this category and they'd run a mile and ban the lot. Which is why I keep saying that PR's no small thing...

regards, and expecting much negative response...

Negative responses are fine (one-sided debate's a bit boring) - uncivil responses won't be acceptable!
Just pre-empting anyone who might get hot under the collar there

Sparks

mosulli4 wrote:

I have written to Minister McDowell, CC my local TD, looking for the following...

BTW, did you CC the letter to the DoJ's email address looking for feedback on the Criminal Justice Bill? See this thread for details and feel free to post your own letter!

mosulli4

BTW,

I did send the original memo to the DOJ, and recieved a very snooty letter from the Minister,via my local TD, stating that the criminal justice bill was just a timely and convenient vehicle for reform!


regards,

mosulli4


I

mosulli4

Sparks,

you wrote...

"And welcome to the nightmare of the DoJ! One shooter from this category and they'd run a mile and ban the lot. Which is why I keep saying that PR's no small thing..."

This I think, is the centre of my argument, although you put it more elequently!. If the international community can endorse such a discipline, , and it is properly regulated then I am all for it...


regards and thanks for your input...


mosulli4

mosulli4

Sparks,

you wrote....
"But for a definitive answer you must define what you mean by a "legitimate" match, which isn't easy to do. It's one of those lines that gets blurrier the closer you look at it. "

In my experience, at best, a standard hi-cap, basic, commodity, auto, is not a match pistol, i.e tightest group on target. I have shot good/bad BAPS in a standard Irish Military "range practice", and felt that it is a very basic/last resort weapon, even in skilled or practiced hands. "Might as well throw it as the target at 10 yards" rings a bell, even amongst good shooters. Is it worth the effort? The most common problem I recall on the range was ricochets from the round nosed ball ammo, and ll that that entails. What counts, in US "practical pistol", is number of rounds in the "kill zone", whilst standing/running/kneeling/sitting/making love to a beautiful woman... Even the human format of the targets is a worry...


without a good reason to own such hardware it is difficult to justify...
and the use of human shaped targets is bound to raise the hackles of any anti-gun/green party lobby.

Please correct me if I am wrong...


regards, and respectively yours.



mosulli4

Sparks

mosulli4 wrote:

In my experience, at best, a standard hi-cap, basic, commodity, auto, is not a match pistol, i.e tightest group on target.

True - but trying to define, in legal terms, the difference between a stock Colt 1911 and a Kimber Custom Target II is a bit difficult. Not to mention that there are subtle differences between fullbore pistols optimised for bullseye target shooting and those optimised for IPSC-style shooting (See here for details). Subtle differences like that don't make it into laws. Legislation drafters want something simple, easily measurable and as straightforward and simple as possible (remember, the Gardai who administer the law and follow the regulations laid down in statutory instruments - which is where any of the details go - generally don't get trained in firearms law at all). Hence the reason that it's as easy to get a .220 swift rifle as it is to get a .22lr rifle (they're both .22 calibre) and the reason that air pistols were as impossible to get licences for as 9mm glocks were (they're both pistols).

What counts, in US "practical pistol", is number of rounds in the "kill zone", whilst standing/running/kneeling/sitting/making love to a beautiful woman... Even the human format of the targets is a worry...

Well, anyone who's read what I post knows I agree with you on this - I don't care about the firearm being used, it's the target that bothers me (and the fact that you're essentially training out the natural hesitation time that people have when it comes to shooting other people, as found by the US army in post-WW1 research).

Thing is, when you think "well, let's just ban it then", you notice that the same firearms are used in disciplines like NRA bullseye which are pretty much exactly what gets shot in the olympics, only with different calibres and with targets scaled accordingly. You'd have to ban a firearm based on the intent of the user, and that's pretty much impossible (as well as being horribly orwellian).